Quote:
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy
That's a bad idea. You gotta make sure the player you resign will still work hard even after getting rich. How many times does a player get a big contract and all of a sudden his play suddenly falls off?
Ask the Redskins who signed Haynesworth to a $100 million contract if it is okay to not sign dlineman to big contracts.
|
You could say that about any player. What about Mahomes? Should we not pay him because he would suddenly be 'rich'? You discuss the Redskins and Haynesworth but Haynesworth had a reputation prior to the Redskins signing him. After he signed it, before he even played for DC, many were excoriating the Redskins because they could see that Haynesworth was going to do this. You are correct that it is a risk for any player to get a big contract and have his play diminish. Jones, though, has been solid for us for a few years. His play this year is in line with the previous years.
It is a risk but the question is not whether it's a risk but whether its a reasonable risk. Given the way Jones has played and how Veach has generally structured cap-friendly deals,* I think we should keep him. Players of his calibre do not come along frequently.
* I say this and someone will point to someone whose contract sucks, like Sammy Watkins. But we can void Watkins' contract after this year and take a relatively small cap hit, unlike Berry or Houston. All in all, Veach has managed the cap better than Dorsey.